Everyone lies. Its up to the press and us readers to tease out the truth. Generally we do a half decent job. Witness this board. Everyone here is pretty up on the real news. It's those items at the periphery that get distorted. Bellingcat did a bang up job in Ukraine, pretty much demolishing the entire Russian narrative. No reason to they were so off the mark in Syria.

That said, jihadis are of such a sheer pathological mindset that it is quite possible that they would run false flag ops.

Some articles from reputable media sources do indeed do a half decent job of truth finding though you may have to read a lot to find them. That they get to publish at all is encouraging.

I generally do not look at work by shadowy groups like Bellingcat, but Bellingcat, whatever their funding, motives or sources, did superb work on the Skripal case, the Russian passports, addresses. The Russian explanation simply dissolved, the guys were both FSB. I feel something is still missing. That is the great thing about waiting, the story gets out eventually.

I just looked up the work Bellingcat did on the BUK. I presume that was what you were referring too. That was neat too, especially finding those sign posts.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

The case may be different now days but in those times for the foreign office to say look, we are not lying, this guy is not a spy ; well that was a betrayal and shook me. It also left future innocents vulnerable.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

That man knows more about Syria than I do and I have no reason to doubt the value of his position.

If the evidence is provided by the white helmets, or doctors embedded with the jihadists then that is not acceptable. NGO's are also questionable if they operate in jihadi controlled areas. And as for government conspiracies, well yes, we are in a propaganda war and Governments do lie.

There are reasons to doubt the value of his position, like his history of being wrong and him being an Assad government lobbyist.

Evidence that doesn't support your position is all unacceptable, you've made that clear. The false verification of the evidence by numerous governments and NGOs requiring a vast conspiracy of thousands of people is deemed credible due to the statements of one guy saying the attack was staged who wasn't there and provided no evidence to support the staging of the fake attack.. like I said, you are being played. The dude is literally reading directly out of the standard Russian disinformation playbook and you are lapping it up.

There are reasons to doubt the value of his position, like his history of being wrong and him being an Assad government lobbyist.

Evidence that doesn't support your position is all unacceptable, you've made that clear. The false verification of the evidence by numerous governments and NGOs requiring a vast conspiracy of thousands of people is deemed credible due to the statements of one guy saying the attack was staged who wasn't there and provided no evidence to support the staging of the fake attack.. like I said, you are being played. The dude is literally reading directly out of the standard Russian disinformation playbook and you are lapping it up.

Did it ever occur to you that his motivation might be the truth? The fact is the evidence is being collected by people who are not impartial. That only leaves opinion.

For the most part there is a conspiracy of silence because countries do not like opposing the US view. But Trump may change that.

We now have the views of three people, not just one, who were in high government positions and should know better than you do what the reality is. The view of Baron West is particularly revealing coming from the establishment. They not only had high government positions, they were the right positions too.

You say former ambassador Ford has a history of being wrong. Maybe he has a history of being right on occasions too. He has certainly been attacked for his views and I would expect that.

I do not lap up anything. That is actually quite insulting, do you know that? I have theories about the bubble you live in too. Want to hear them?

The thing about deducing that one chemical attack was a fake is how many more were too. That is why some people are desperate to close that door.

To conclude I think Obama's red line was not well thought out - to say the least. When the US says it will attack the Syrian army if they use gas is an invitation to the Jihadis to fake a chemical attacks, as quick as possible.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

And they pretty much nailed Ghouta. You are to be commended for citing an article that pretty well counters your previous assertions.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

The fact is the evidence is being collected by people who are not impartial. That only leaves opinion.

This is a false dichotomy.
You can rationally assess evidence, regardless of who delivered it, if you think you can dismiss all the evidence that an attack actually happened then you are not thinking reasonably about the situation, there is just too much evidence from too many sources with too many people implicated. Believing that this attack was staged is in the same zip code as believing Sandy Hook truthers. Look at all the reports and all the differing sources, the number of people who are on the ground and who went there to investigate, the contemporaneous reports consistent with subsequent findings. This is not hard to figure out.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

For the most part there is a conspiracy of silence because countries do not like opposing the US view. But Trump may change that. We now have the views of three people, not just one, who were in high government positions and should know better than you do what the reality is.

No, you do not have the views of 3 people:
- you have the view of one person that thinks the attack never happened.
- you have the view of another person that thinks Assad didn't order it.
- you have the view of another person that thinks that ordering would not be in Assad's interest but trusts the government's assessment.
These are 3 different views. If you accept the view of the first person then you are rejecting the views of the other 2. You see, when one person's view is based on facts rejected by another person you can't say they agree, they don't agree. This is fundamental to having a coherent idea of how reality relates to opinion, two different realities that converge on the same opinion is on a consistent line of reasoning, they do not mutually support each other.
If one pundit argued that gun control is not required because all of the mass shootings in America are staged and another agreed that gun control is not required because the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun you would be correct to say they have concurring opinions on gun control - you would be incorrect to say that they agree with each other or that their arguments support each other.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

The view of Baron West is particularly revealing coming from the establishment.

And I agree with his opinion.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

They not only had high government positions, they were the right positions too. You say former ambassador Ford has a history of being wrong. Maybe he has a history of being right on occasions too. He has certainly been attacked for his views and I would expect that.

Feel free to point out instances where his pro-Assad statements have turned out to be true, supported by credible evidence. All I otherwise see from him is a bunch of pro-Assad bluster.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

I do not lap up anything. That is actually quite insulting, do you know that?

It was not intended as a complement. I have too much respect for this forum to not state my frank opinion.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

I have theories about the bubble you live in too. Want to hear them?

Yes.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

The thing about deducing that one chemical attack was a fake is how many more were too. That is why some people are desperate to close that door.

Two of the people you say support your view have closed that door, so that just leaves you with Mr. Ford. See my comments above about how that logic works.

George Rowell, on 04 January 2019 - 11:12 PM, said:

To conclude I think Obama's red line was not well thought out - to say the least. When the US says it will attack the Syrian army if they use gas is an invitation to the Jihadis to fake a chemical attacks, as quick as possible.

So they faked an attack 3 months after Obama left office, five (5!) years after the initial threat was already proven toothless? Besides the obvious problem that there is mountain of evidence that the attack actually happened, this is thin gruel in the first place.

This is a false dichotomy.
You can rationally assess evidence, regardless of who delivered it, if you think you can dismiss all the evidence that an attack actually happened then you are not thinking reasonably about the situation, there is just too much evidence from too many sources with too many people implicated. Believing that this attack was staged is in the same zip code as believing Sandy Hook truthers. Look at all the reports and all the differing sources, the number of people who are on the ground and who went there to investigate, the contemporaneous reports consistent with subsequent findings. This is not hard to figure out.

Nice one, J-CA.

Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

Only Satan can rebuke sin. The righteous don't know enough.

God is not dead. He was merely voted out of office.

You can do anything with anybody if you just save them the trouble of thinking.

There are reasons to doubt the value of his position, like his history of being wrong and him being an Assad government lobbyist.

Evidence that doesn't support your position is all unacceptable, you've made that clear. The false verification of the evidence by numerous governments and NGOs requiring a vast conspiracy of thousands of people is deemed credible due to the statements of one guy saying the attack was staged who wasn't there and provided no evidence to support the staging of the fake attack.. like I said, you are being played. The dude is literally reading directly out of the standard Russian disinformation playbook and you are lapping it up.

Wow, such a lot to answer, and I feel I should (eventually), and respectfully, answer all the good points you have made. You must type a lot faster than I. We differ in views but it is apparent that truth, not ideology, is your driver. That is my driver too, where ever it leads.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

While I am looking at your previous response I would be interested on your view of the doubts of another former UK ambassador Craig Murray about the Idlib gas attack. https://www.craigmur...-probabilities/

Former Ambassador Murray is now a human rights activist and historian. You might also be interested in clicking the link given to the take down of the infamous BBC report 'Saving Syria's children' that has been trashed as a fake.

Ambassador Murray is also on record as saying Syrian NGO's red cross etc seem to have lowered their standards and become Jihadi propagandists. He also claims to have seen the BBC rehearsing live news and accuses the BBC of crossing the line from real life into fiction. Here is the link but it is long and rambling and I do not suggest you view it. Youtube Craig Murray - Iraq/Syria Conflict Explained.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

Rich T, don't worry. I am only interested in truth. I am an engineer not a bureaucrat. An argument is a way to the truth. It should of course be a courteous process. If J-CA convinces me that I am wrong then I will thank him, and mean it, but he is a long way from that at the moment. The beauty of an argument is the truth wins not the person.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

file:///C:/Users/georg/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.pngGeorge Rowell, on 05 January 2019 - 12:12 PM, said:
Did it ever occur to you that his motivation might be the truth?Do his motivations matter?
Well his motivations matter to you don’t they? You state The dude is literally reading directly out of the standard Russian disinformation playbook and you are lapping it up “ So you clearly are in no position to ask me are you?

The fact is the evidence is being collected by people who are not impartial. That only leaves opinion.This is a false dichotomy.You can rationally assess evidence, regardless of who delivered it, if you think you can dismiss all the evidence that an attack actually happened then you are not thinking reasonably about the situation, there is just too much evidence from too many sources with too many people implicated.
Wrong. Rubbish in rubbish out. We have relied on tainted sources for our evidence. If there is systematic faking of evidence then no matter how much evidence is analysed the result is useless. There will be no mathematical pedestal of truth upon which the untruths rest.
(Just for interest, if you want to analyse, at least what they say on camera, then the best analysis is not what they say, it is what they do not say. Keep them talking long enough and look at Gaps in the spectrum, not the peaks)

Believing that this attack was staged is in the same zip code as believing Sandy Hook truthers.
This is just plain coloration.

Look at all the reports and all the differing sources, the number of people who are on the ground and who went there to investigate, the contemporaneous reports consistent with subsequent findings. This is not hard to figure out.
The differing sources all used evidence supplied by the white helmets or other embedded NGOs, including videos, soil samples, pictures of rockets and so on. The inspectors went to sites maintained by jihadis and the white helmets. Lord West, who you agree with, says the white helmets are not impartial. Again, rubbish in rubbish out, no matter how much.

For the most part there is a conspiracy of silence because countries do not like opposing the US view. But Trump may change that. We now have the views of three people, not just one, who were in high government positions and should know better than you do what the reality is.No, you do not have the views of 3 people:
- you have the view of one person that thinks the attack never happened.
- you have the view of another person that thinks Assad didn't order it.
- you have the view of another person that thinks that ordering would not be in Assad's interest but trusts the government's assessment.
These are 3 different views. If you accept the view of the first person then you are rejecting the views of the other 2.
This is just being tricky. There are no facts only opinions and they are an almost analogue quantity. Just because A has one view about several items and B does not agree on all items does not mean we that need to throw away all of B’s views. One person may have a strong view on a particular point while others might not bother to mention it. Given enough opinions, your straight ‘AND filter’ will remove everything!
Clearly Lord West’s view is the key person here, while General West and Ambassador Ford are valid contributors but of lesser importance. Let’s do an up down matrix and weight their views. Lord west is our reference, he was head of the UK army and head of military intelligence so give him a reference weighting of 10. General Shaw was a government military adviser, so give him a weighting of 5, while ambassador Ford I would also allot a 5. I base that on the fact that Lord west towers in importance above the other two.

On the view that Assad did not order the attack we have Maximum 20
On the view that the attack never happened we have 5
On the view that it would not be in Assad’s interest we have 15

You left out one view. I will include it.

On the view that evidence from the white helmets cannot be trusted 20

but trusts the government's assessment.
This is worth examining on its own. Lord West did not have the BBC interview because he wanted the speaker fee or exposure. He had something important to say and he wanted to be heard by all. Lord West is part of the establishment, he does not want to rock the boat, he wants to steer it. He is not going to say the government is misguided or misleads. After delivering the bombshell about the untrustworthiness of white helmets, the NGOs and the embedded doctors, and questioning the government acceptance of these sources, he is bound to add a softener - like saying he accepts the government assessment. I read nothing into this at all. It is a platitude, and you know it.

You see, when one person's view is based on facts rejected by another person you can't say they agree, they don't agree. This is fundamental to having a coherent idea of how reality relates to opinion, two different realities that converge on the same opinion is on a consistent line of reasoning, they do not mutually support each other.
They agree on a lot. As I said earlier if you put an ‘AND filter’ on opinions from a number of sources, as the number increases there will eventually be no output at all. The opinions need to be weighted. The only people who agree all the time on reports are policemen in my experience.

If one pundit argued that gun control is not required because all of the mass shootings in America are staged and another agreed that gun control is not required because the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun you would be correct to say they have concurring opinions on gun control - you would be incorrect to say that they agree with each other or that their arguments support each other.
They both agree that gun control is not required for reasons that do not align. They do not have concurring opinion, although their arguments do not destroy each other.

The view of Baron West is particularly revealing coming from the establishment.And I agree with his opinion.
You pretty much have to. His credentials are impeccable.

They not only had high government positions, they were the right positions too. You say former ambassador Ford has a history of being wrong. Maybe he has a history of being right on occasions too. He has certainly been attacked for his views and I would expect that.Feel free to point out instances where his pro-Assad statements have turned out to be true, supported by credible evidence. All I otherwise see from him is a bunch of pro-Assad bluster.
I have reviewed the last ten (different) youtube offerings from ambassador Ford and he has a not said anything that has proven wrong. I have also looked up press releases and found nothing. The Telegraph hit piece you found that inferred ambassador Ford was paid lobbying for BSS was retracted with an apology. I really think it is up to you to find instances where he was wrong.

Other members of BSS have included Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria, Brian Constant and Sir Gavyn Arthur, a former Lord Mayor of London. That is impressive company. All resigned during the propaganda war and that is hardly surprising. They agreed that BSS had done good work.
In the Telegraph hit piece it said ambassador Ford had blamed the opposition forces for an attack on an aid convey. Is that your history of being wrong! That is laughable. You had better come up with something better than that.

I do not lap up anything. That is actually quite insulting, do you know that?It was not intended as a complement. I have too much respect for this forum to not state my frank opinion.
I too have respect for this forum but I manage to keep my comments courteous. Your frank opinion is all anyone wants to hear.

I have theories about the bubble you live in too. Want to hear them?Yes.
OK. I believe people conform to peer pressure and match their peers ‘clothes’ to become something bigger than they are as individuals. Associate with the ‘right’ set and have the ‘right’ opinions. Seek and feel the confirmation that they have said the right thing. I believe it leads to 'group think' and channeled thinking and it makes people vulnerable to manipulation and deception.

The thing about deducing that one chemical attack was a fake is how many more were too. That is why some people are desperate to close that door.Two of the people you say support your view have closed that door, so that just leaves you with Mr. Ford. See my comments above about how that logic works.
No, they have not. To reiterate, Lord West tacked on to the end of his verbal bombshell that he must 'accept the government assessment'. That is just a softener after the public rollicking he gave them, nothing more. His tone of voice and his body language confirms it. What is more I think you see that and you are being ingenuous to include it in your argument.

To conclude I think Obama's red line was not well thought out - to say the least. When the US says it will attack the Syrian army if they use gas is an invitation to the Jihadis to fake a chemical attacks, as quick as possible.So they faked an attack 3 months after Obama left office, five (5!) years after the initial threat was already proven toothless? Besides the obvious problem that there is mountain of evidence that the attack actually happened, this is thin gruel in the first place.
Your ’mountain’ of evidence is more like a rubbish tip. Evidence largely supplied from tainted sources, or obtained from areas under jihadi control.

Since your reply I have introduced the opinion of another former UK ambassador who voices strong doubts about the chemical attack in Idlib. That makes 4 eminent high ranked people who doubt the UK government narrative. These people surely understand the situation better than you or I.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

While I am looking at your previous response I would be interested on your view of the doubts of another former UK ambassador Craig Murray about the Idlib gas attack... Former Ambassador Murray is now a human rights activist and historian....

This guy:
- Very admirably stood on principle and spoke out about the torture in Uzbekistan when he was an ambassador. Of course, he insisted on doing so even though diplomatic staff driving a wedge between the UK and the Uzbeks was not the policy that the UK government favoured, and it justs so happened to be exactly the sort of thing the Russians would find serve their interests.
- Supported Scottish independence, which I think is great, but again happens to be consistent with Russian interests in UK affairs.
- Flip-flopped on the EU, coming out as a Brexit supporter - the cross-section of voters that support Scottish independence and Brexit.. perhaps he just happens to be a member of the narrow group of SNP members that are also EU-skeptics.. but again this just happens to be the position that exactly aligns with Russian interests.
- He is best buddies with Julian Assange - again, another strategic interest of the Russian government
- He claims that there was no DNC hack and that he has personally met the DNC leaker in the woods(!!) - telling the story but providing no evidence, another opinion that happens to exactly align with Russian interests.
- He claims that the Skripal poisoning was not perpetrated by Russia, he was caught directly parroting the same line as the Russian foreign ministry on the same day in one case.
- All of his positions on Syria happen to be pro-Assad.

The White Helmets are obviously propagandist for Jihadis but this guy is certainly on the level.

I keep coming back to this statement.
This is the literal intent of disinformation propaganda techniques.
This is the actual objective, that nothing can be known.

I agree with you about disinformation one hundred percent, but I believe you are too ready to call all opposing voices Russophiles. I think you are the victim of relentless propaganda and group think. That is not just a cheap cover, I really do believe that in all honesty.

Because intellectuals you admire say this, and these views are in the majority, you believe it and think it is right and admirable to perpetuate it, people will look up to you if you do, stroke you. It has a life of it's own now and that is propaganda at its best.

Do not think this is a cheap shot, I would not stoop that low, but (I believe) a lot of the World say 'Yanks' and smile because they see this. Maybe many cannot articulate it, but they know something is not quite right with over there.

I am sad to say that the relentless Murdoch press is winning this propaganda war, and the UK and some of Europe is in its thrall, and it is ultimately not against Russia but the people themselves, us, Russia is the bogey man. Frankly it scares me. As with the coming of AI, I see tremendous problems for peoples free will.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

You mentioned the Skripal poisoning and I find this a fascinating case. At first Russia said they were tourists. Then it transpired they were in the 'fitness' industry. Then Putin arranged that interview with RT. At one point the pair even tried tried to throw the line that they were two young men travelling together because they were gay by saying that questions on their sex orientation were personal. That was simple distraction. Then Bellingcat revealed that the passport numbers were consecutive and linked to a GRU address and I can imagine Putin groaning in his bath. It was a comedy of errors yet lots of things have no explanation.

Timing the attack before the World cup was stupid.
Unusually, the Skripals turned off their phone GPS for 4 hours on that day. Why on earth would Skripal who was being monitored sever his links to the World? What did Skipal's security minders think about that?
Skripal's handler who lives nearby is deeply involved in the Steel Dossier and the Mueller probe was in full swing.
The Skripal's left house early in the morning and both contacted quick-acting novichok from the door handle. They later had lunch in good spirits, bought things and much later both suddenly fell ill.
They did not die.
The home office have not released all photos of the Russian agents on they walks around Coventry. They must know where they went but so few photos.
Neither one of the Skripals have said anything since since Julia's interview. They have made no Russian denounciations, nothing.
The Kremin has gone silent.
The UK government have gone silent.

I reckon the Skipals met up with the Russians in Coventry by appointment. I think we should take it from there.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.

A doctor knows a little about a lot. A specialist knows a lot about a little. In time the doctor knows less and less about more and more and the specialist knows more and more about less and less until ultimately the doctor knows nothing about everything and the specialist knows everything about nothing.